首页> 外文OA文献 >Same data – different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science
【2h】

Same data – different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science

机译:相同的数据–结果不同?寻求比较方法来识别科学中的主题结构

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Science studies are persistently challenged by the elusive structures of their subject matter, be it scientific knowledge or the various collectivities of researchersengaged with its production. Bibliometrics has responded by developing a strong and growing structural bibliometrics, which is concerned with delineating fields and identifyingthematic structures. In the course of these developments, a concern emerged and is steadily growing. Do the sets of publications, authors or institutions we identify and visualise with our methods indeed represent thematic structures? To what extent are results of topic identification exercises determined by properties of knowledge structures, and to what extent are they determined by the approaches we use? Do we produce more than artefacts? These questions triggered the collective process of comparative topic identification reported in this special issue. The introduction traces the history of bibliometric approaches to topic identification, identifies the major challenges involved in these exercises, andintroduces the contributions to the special issue.
机译:科学研究一直受到其主题的难以捉摸的结构的挑战,无论是科学知识还是从事科学生产的研究人员的各种集体。文献计量学通过发展强大且不断增长的结构化文献计量学来应对这一问题,这涉及到描述领域和确定主题结构。在这些事态发展的过程中,人们开始关注并稳步增长。我们用我们的方法识别和可视化的出版物,作者或机构是否确实代表了主题结构?主题识别练习的结果在多大程度上由知识结构的属性决定,并且在多大程度上由我们使用的方法确定?我们生产的产品不只是人工制品吗?这些问题引发了本期特刊报道的比较主题识别的集体过程。引言追溯了文献计量学方法用于主题识别的历史,确定了这些练习中涉及的主要挑战,并介绍了对特殊问题的贡献。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号